(Bear Creek Reservoir Specific)
9 messages
Updated 11/3/2023 6:12:58 AM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Bear Creek Reservoir Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
Yankee06
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Realty Tax Improves Your Heath
|
|
Date:
|
6/15/2010 7:08:11 PM
|
-Below is an interesting article from teh Spokesman Review which discusses new taxes contained in teh new heath care bill. most of them are of teh "soak-the-rich" kind, so most people don't care. However, this is the first time I have heard of a 3.8% realty tax, even on private homes. This will probaly be a big deal when most people have to start paying it.
-Remember, we had to pass teh bill before we could find out what was in it!
The article follows (I'll highlighted 3.8% tax section with XXXXXXXs:
March 28, 2010 in Opinion
Health law’s heavy impact
Paul Guppy Special to The Spokesman-
In the days leading up to the dramatic late-night vote on President Barack Obama’s health plan, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it …” Now that ObamaCare has passed, it is slowly dawning on people what the new law means for the country and for Washington state.
ObamaCare sweeps away a host of state regulations and permanently alters our state’s insurance market. From now on, the federal government will manage the health care of all Washingtonians. The 2,700-page law contains a complex web of mandates, directives, price controls, tax increases and subsidies.
Federal officials will now decide what kind of insurance people in Washington must have, what medicines will be covered, what treatments are allowed and which are not. Early reports indicate, however, that President Obama, Vice President Biden, the Cabinet, senior members of Congress and leadership staff are exempt.
The new law falls well short of universal coverage. ObamaCare will leave about 6 percent of Washington residents without coverage. The measure is conservatively expected to cost $2.4 trillion in its first full decade. Thousands of older Washingtonians will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage, and the state’s 120,000 Health Savings Account holders may need to buy new policies or face stiff penalties.
Washington residents will begin paying ObamaCare taxes this year, while most benefits don’t start until 2014. The law includes some 19 new taxes. Here’s a rundown of what Washingtonians can expect in the coming years.
Penalties on individuals. Individuals will pay a yearly penalty of $695, or up to 2.5 percent of their annual income, if they cannot show they have purchased a government-approved health policy.
Penalties on families. Families will pay a yearly penalty of $347 per child, up to $2,250 per family, if parents cannot show they have purchased a government- approved policy.
Penalties on employers. Business owners with more than 50 employees must buy government- acceptable health coverage or pay a yearly penalty of $2,000 per employee if at least one employee receives a tax credit.
Tax on investment income. ObamaCare imposes a 3.8 percent annual tax on investment income of individuals making $200,000 or more and on families making $250,000 or more. The new tax is not indexed to inflation, so more people will fall under it each year. Seniors on fixed incomes and people with IRAs and 401(k) plans will be hit particularly hard.
Tax on “Cadillac” health plans. Starting in 2018, imposes a 40 percent annual tax on health care plans valued at $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families.
Medicare tax increase. Requires single people earning $200,000 or more and couples earning $250,000 or more to pay an additional 0.9 percent in Medicare taxes.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Tax on Home Sales. Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are “rich” for only one day – the day they sell their house and buy a new one.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Tax on medical aid devices. Creates a new 2.9 percent tax on medical aid devices. Certain items intended for personal use are exempt.
Tax on tanning. Imposes a 10 percent tax on services at tanning salons. Business owners will collect the tax from customers and send it to the federal government. This appears to be the first federal sales tax in the United States.
ObamaCare will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service. The tax agency plans to hire 16,500 new auditors, agents and investigators, and to increase enforcement audits. The IRS can confiscate tax refunds, place liens on property and seek jail time if health-related penalties and taxes are not paid.
President Obama had said people could keep their coverage if they want, yet the Congressional Budget Office estimates that under ObamaCare 8 million to 9 million people will lose their employer-provided coverage.
The ObamaCare law passed over bipartisan opposition in Congress. Republicans say they will run on a “repeal and replace” platform this fall, and Washington has joined 12 other states in a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s power to force state residents to buy a product – insurance – from private companies. The long-term prospects of ObamaCare are unclear. In the meantime, Washingtonians should prepare for major changes in their tax burden.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Realty Tax Improves Your Heath
|
|
Date:
|
6/15/2010 8:13:35 PM
|
Glad I'm not planning to buy or sell real estate any time soon.
I'm puzzled by the tax on medical aids. Seems to me that would hit the very people that they were trying to help.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
NOT TRUE YANKEE
|
|
Date:
|
6/16/2010 12:56:22 AM
|
It only applies for a married couple who sell their home for a PROFIT of at least $500,000 and then they pay the 3.8% on the amount of profit over $500,000. So, if they sell their home for a $1,000,000 and paid $200,000 then they would pay the 3.8% tax on $300,000 ($800,000 profit minus the $500,000) or $11,400. For singles, the amount is $250,000 profit. Hardly a middle class tax.
"In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold."
|
| Name: |
Yankee06
-
|
|
| Subject: |
NOT TRUE YANKEE
|
|
Date:
|
6/16/2010 1:45:34 AM
|
GF
-An "unofficial" thanks to you for that clarification.
-No "official" thanks till MM agrees! :-)
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The GF Truth Detector has arrived....
|
|
Date:
|
6/16/2010 9:38:10 AM
|
As usual GF only provides part of the story and manages to throw in a bit of class envy to boot.
First of all, this law is actually a change from the pre-1997 law where the only way to avoid paying taxes on a home sale was to roll it over into another residence or take advantage of a one-time exemption. The people who got screwed by this change were the middle class folks that either bought their homes a long time ago in most markets or bought homes in strong markets (i.e., San Francisco, LA, DC, etc.) that had the option to sell their homes at huge profit (often more than $1M) and moved to less expensive markets and retired (I call them equity transplants and there are tons of them in Oregon, Idaho, Washington). Before the new law they could take their one-time exemption and pay no taxes. But for many people that don't win the housing lottery or move often this new law is an improvement because they can take advantage of the tax break multiple times (of course there are certain conditions that must be met).
Second, the limit on the profit for married couples is indeed $500K but it drops to $250K for a single. So widows or widowers are particularly vulnerable to be hurt by this law. It is very easy to imagine some nice middle class couple that bought their home awhile ago, one dies and then when the survivor sells they have to pay taxes on the gain (the difference between the sales price and what they paid for the house plus improvements). While a $500K profit is hard to reach for most homes in most markets, $250K is not. My wife's parents lived in the same home for 35 years that they bought for $21K in 1965 and was sold for $350K after her Dad died. And this was in Cincinnati, Ohio which is not exactly a hotbed of real estate value growth. They were very much middle class (her Dad never made more than $35K in any year). So if you extend that to the millions of middle class folks that have lived in their homes for a while it can very much impact the middle class.
Third, what GF fails to mention is the actual current tax on a home sale is 18.8% (long-term capital gains of 15% plus the 3.8%). And this number will go up to 23.8% in 2011. So after 2011 almost one quarter of the profit from a home sale goes to pay taxes. As I pointed out above this does indeed have the potential to impact the middle class.
So GF is factually correct in what he wrote (except the bit about not impacting the middle class) but as usual he only told part of the story and engaged in leftist class envy.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Martini Truth Detector has arrived....
|
|
Date:
|
6/16/2010 11:59:51 AM
|
Most homes are owned jointly. Assuming your wife’s parents owned it jointly, each owed 1/2. Since her dad owned 1/2, her mom inherited his half on a stepped up cost basis. The cost was $10,500 allocated to each of them (1/2 of $21,000) and the market value at time of her dad’s passing for his 50% was $175,000 (1/2 of $350,000). The new cost basis for the 1/2 in her dad’s name was $164,500 ($175,000-$10,500).
Her mom’s new cost basis was $175,000 (her $10,500+$164,500). Based on the sale of the house, her profit for tax purposes was $175,000 ($350,000-her new cost basis of $175,000). Since she was a widow, her exemption from tax would be $250,000 which is greater than the $175,000 so there would be NO tax.
If a tax was paid then you guys need a new accountant.
“So after 2011 almost one quarter of the profit from a home sale goes to pay taxes.” Rather misleading when you use the word profit. Profit AFTER the $250,000 or $500,000 exclusion and any step up basis.
So Martini, as usual, only told part of the story and engaged in conservative fact manipulation.
Cheers.
|
| Name: |
Yankee06
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Truth is in teh Eye of ...?....
|
|
Date:
|
6/16/2010 12:16:37 PM
|
GF and MM,
-As always, spirited and enjoyable
--Thanks
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You assume a lot GF....much that you can't know
|
|
Date:
|
6/16/2010 12:35:35 PM
|
How do you know it was jointly owned? In fact, I will take the position that the house was in her Mom's name so there is no step up. Now assuming the house was in her name does that change your calculation? Besides, I never said they paid any tax on the home because I don't know their personal business. I merely used a real life scenario to point out middle class people can indeed have a large gain on a home they own that could indeed trigger the tax.
And you never did respond to all those middle class folks in the overheated markets that made more than $500K on their homes. I suppose if they won the home value lottery they don't deserve all that money anyway. It needs to go the government to be redistributed to those unlucky folks who didn't make a good financial decisions, sacrificed by not constantly trading up homes, etc.
You see GF, even when you think you are right you are still left. :-)
|
| Name: |
Lifer
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Reality vs Reality
|
|
Date:
|
6/16/2010 12:39:19 PM
|
Truth of the matter is you could gather 10 tax attorneys/CPA's and get at least 12 different interpretations of the law. And don't even think about getting correct info from any IRS agent/representative. And this is by design of the slave masters. The more confusing the code is, the easier to manipulate it, and hence the behavoir of the sheeple.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You assume a lot GF....much that you can't know
|
|
Date:
|
6/16/2010 1:50:50 PM
|
Why use an example that leaves the impression there was a tax?
If her mom always owned the house then under current law it was always subject to the tax over a profit of $250,000. The additional tax of 3.8% amounts to an additional $3,002 on a profit of $329,000 after the $250,000.
I operate on the basis when I sell property or stock at a profit that the buyer paid my tax. I just forward it to the IRS. Otherwise, the tendency is to hold on to avoid a tax and be subject to a falling marketplace as we have seen the past 2 years.
I fail to understand your middle class argument. The sale of your primary residence at a profit is a capital gain like any other investment. However, you can deduct either $250,000 or $500,000 from the profit. Seems quite clear.
It is so surprising that someone who is such an asute businessman would have so little knowledge about her business affairs. I guess she doesn't trust a conservative.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
She's dead and I don't intrude on others privacy
|
|
Date:
|
6/16/2010 3:54:42 PM
|
unless I am asked. As for trusting a conservative I can assure you she would have trusted me long before trusting a libtard that thinks its a good idea to pay more in taxes. She had one of my brothers-in-law advising her. He was a tax accountant, now retired.
Of course you still haven't responded about my middle class single person that bought a house say in San Francisco 35 years ago for $50,000 and it is now worth $1.5M. Not plausible you say? Don't make me prove you wrong. :-)
Let me do the math for you.
Pre-1997 One time exemption tax = $0
1997 - 2010 tax cost = $180,000 ($1.45M-$.25M * 0.15)
2010 tax cost = $219,600 ($1.45M-$.25M * 0.183)
Post 2011 tax cost = $285,600 ($1.45M-$.25M * 0.238)
That's a lot of dog food for Grandma. I suppose we should also add the $1,400 per month she will get from SS.....oh wait a second, she has to pay taxes on that as well and with all her money from the house sale it is means tested away so never mind....
As I said, you weren't wrong about anything other than this not impacting the middle class which even your math shows that it does, albeit not a huge amount. I also pointed out you only covered part of the story by focusing on the additional 3.8% of the total tax liability. You see only a liberal would just look at the additional tax as if all the other tax liability doesn't exist. I see and understand the what the real impact is of taxes and not just what they have added lately.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Martini's $371,000 ERROR
|
|
Date:
|
6/17/2010 10:52:48 PM
|
Pre 1997( .ie1996) the tax was 28% and the exemption was one time for those over 55. It was $125,000. Therefore the tax in your example was $371,000 NOT $0 (1.45-.125*.28).
Yes, grandma would pay tax on her SS like everyone else with higher earnings.
But, grandma is NOT middle class with about $1.2 million cash net from the sale. There is no denying that the tax will be increased.
A better solution in my opinion would be for Gramdma to check the rental market and see if she can rent the place to supplement her SS. Then, upon her death the children would inherit the home at the stepped up value of 1.45 million.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Sigh......GF is right about one thing
|
|
Date:
|
6/18/2010 9:36:54 AM
|
My math prior to 1997 was wrong in that it assumed the entire amount was used to buy another home and was exempt from taxes. Any of the profits that they held onto and did not put into another home would be subject to taxes. I also give him one more area of credit. He has gotten us off track on whether the increased tax on long-term capital gains is a good thing or a bad thing. Way to go GF! While you argue the nuances of a hypothetical home sale we have completely lost the original intent of the discussion which was how increased taxes on the productive will only harm the economy and will not in the long run increase revenues to the Treasury. Its never worked any time its been tried but why let historical facts get in the way of a good class envy argument?
As for Grandma no longer being middle class with $1.2M I beg to differ. If she retires at age 65 and lives to age 85 then that $1.2M nets her around $60K per year (I know I am ignoring the 1.5% interest she could earn on that money). I suppose that is rich to you but I think most Americans would consider that middle class. I suppose if she were lucky maybe she would cooperate and just die in 2 or 3 years so we could all call her rich for that short period of time. Unfortunately for her if you look at life expectancy for those that live to age 65 it is over 83 years for all Americans and if poor Grandma happens to be really unlucky and be a white woman it is almost 85 years. Nice try though.......
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Bear Creek Reservoir
Login
|
Home
